Automakers Lay Foundation for Semi-Autonomous Driving

Concerns over distraction in the vehicle may be hastening the auto industry's move toward semi-autonomous driving. A spate of recent studies indicates that risky behavior by drivers is on the rise, while new safety technologies, such as auto-braking, are reducing the frequency and severity of crashes. Moreover, the combination of those risky behaviors and technological successes seems to be paving the way for more advanced safety features, such as semi-autonomous steering.

"We know that people call and text a lot while they're driving," Jeremy Salinger, innovation program manager for General Motors, told us. "We're just trying to make the car safer, given the fact that they're doing these sorts of things."

Jeremy Salinger of GM: "If you're not careful in the way you implement this technology, people will be less attentive to the road than they are now."

Indeed, the new technologies appear to be boosting safety. A recent study by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) showed that forward collision avoidance systems, particularly those that can brake autonomously, are reducing crashes. On Acura, Mercedes-Benz, and Volvo vehicles, property damage liability frequencies were 14 percent lower than on vehicles without autonomous braking, the HLDI study said.

Autonomous braking, however, may only be the tip of the trend. GM recently announced that it is ratcheting up its semi-autonomous effort by road-testing a technology called "Super Cruise," capable of fully automatic braking, steering, and lane-centering.

Interest in such systems appears to be partially due to the increased use of smartphones and other electronic technologies in the car. A 2011 study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety revealed that 68 percent of drivers admitted to having talked on a cellphone while driving and 35 percent admitted to reading emails or typing text messages while driving. Ironically, 95 percent of those surveyed said they viewed both of those chores as serious threats to their own personal safety, the study showed. "It's not the only reason we're considering semi-autonomous technology, but it's an added incentive," Salinger said.

Before putting next-level technology on the road, however, GM engineers are studying its effect on the attentiveness of drivers. The giant automaker recently teamed with Virginia Tech University to examine Super Cruise technology in a driving simulator and in vehicles on a GM test track in Michigan. The company's engineers hope to use the results to create guidelines for future semi-autonomous systems. "If you're not careful in the way you implement this technology, people will be less attentive to the road than they are now," Salinger said. "But if you're careful in the way you do it, you won't degrade their attentiveness."

GM's goal is for the Super Cruise technology to be available in selected Cadillac vehicles by mid-decade. The idea of the technology is to ease the driver's workload -- on long road trips and in bumper-to-bumper traffic -- by relying on fusion of radar, ultrasonic sensors, cameras, and GPS technology.

Salinger said that many consumers have indicated in focus groups that they aren't interested in relinquishing control to automatic braking and steering systems, despite increased use of smartphones in vehicles. "There are those who love to drive and don't want to give up control," he said. "And then there are those for whom driving itself is the distraction. On this matter, we know that the population is not homogeneous."

It sounds like a mixed message to me, too. I don't really get why automakers would want to encourage risky behavior. If drivers are breaking the law by texting or talking on the phone, then shouldn't they be cited? We don't make cars that accommodate drinking while driving, so why should we make cars that accommodate these habits?

Think of the lost time sitting behind a wheel in everyday commuter traffic that could be put to better use. It's a two-fold savings, because the autonomous vehicles will supposedly handle traffic more efficiently.

I agree on both counts, Rob. On a gut level, I don't feel comfortable giving up control to an autonomous car. On the other hand, I think that in a hundred years, people will look back at our era and view us as primitive for having put up with 30,000 highway deaths per year (and that's just in the U.S.).

May be if the roads were MORE crowded people would begin (slowly) to migrate closer to work for their living quarters.

Even most "dumb" animals seem to figure out the best places to live and don't migrate too far from home. But then they don't have politicians that tell them "just stay where you are we will make things better.

The states keep telling us that more tax money will make for quicker commutes and keep our hopes up so no one moves. The only ones it seems to benefit are the asphalt paving people.

Freeways were originally designed to move military vehicles rapidly in the case of "Communist attack". Russia never attacked but finally crushed us with traffic jams.

Back in the old days people just wouldn't have lived 30 or 40 miles from work.

In my area it's common for people to spend 1 to 2 hours traveling to work.

@Bryan: I don't think it's a conscious effort to buck the rules or thumb their nose at safety. I think people are just indoctrinated in the "always connected, always on" culture so that if you're driving and your text beeps, your automatic reflex is to check it. It requires some significant will power to ignore it. Now that begs the question, why don't we all shut off our phones while in our cars. But again, the culture has evolved to the point where your office expects to hunt you down wherever you are and you're looking for a constant connection to your kids and family. It took a decade or two to get to this place where this is the expected norm. Try convincing people to go back.

@Beth, If Charles' statistics from the AAA are correct that 95% of people know it is not safe, yet 68% still do it, how can that not be a conscious decision to do something they know is not safe. Although that sounds harsh, I think we (as I use the phone with headset while driving) see it as an acceptable risk for the benefit of staying in touch. Or a drunk drives home from the bar sees that as an acceptable risk for the benefit of being home with his car. Or just like any person who drives and risks being part of that 30000 killed each year sees it as an acceptable risk for the benefit of getting somewhere. If we wanted to remain safe at all times we would never get anything done, as almost everything has some risk. The question is, is the risk acceptable in trade for the benefit.

A few weeks ago, Ford Motor Co. quietly announced that it was rolling out a new wrinkle to the powerful safety feature called stability control, adding even more lifesaving potential to a technology that has already been very successful.

It won't be too much longer and hardware design, as we used to know it, will be remembered alongside the slide rule and the Karnaugh map. You will need to move beyond those familiar bits and bytes into the new world of software centric design.

People who want to take advantage of solar energy in their homes no longer need to install a bolt-on solar-panel system atop their houses -- they can integrate solar-energy-harvesting shingles directing into an existing or new roof instead.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.